Intelligent discussion is dying. And our chances for a peaceful society with it.

This article is not the generic, cliche "we need to stop calling each other names", although that still remains true. While that advice is certainly still relevant and important to keep in mind, I think in many ways the problem runs deeper.

It's about talking past one another. It's about not defining terms. It's about verbal sleights of hand.

If people are unable to hold discussions that honestly convey the issues, we as a society will only spin our tires in the mud and grow ideologically more polarized.

Take, for example, this interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Professor Mike Isaacson from John Jay College of Criminal Justice:

Carlson: "So, your position, tell me if I'm mischaracterizing this, is people you define as fascist do not have free speech rights."

Isaacson: "No, my position is communities have the right to defend themselves against groups that actively seek to eliminate members of that community."

Carlson: "To defend themselves against violence, or defend themselves against--"

Isaacson: "Yes, against violence, we're talking about--"

Carlson: "No but physical violence, so if I say for example--"

Isaacson: "Yes, physical violence! We're talking about a group that has a history of enacting hate crimes--"

And the discussion rambled on incoherently for seven minutes as the two men ran in verbal circles because they could barely even pin down the definition of the word 'violence'. If either one of them had taken a moment to define terms and let the other speak for more than a sentence, perhaps they could have understood the other side a bit more.

Discussions like these are not the problem, but the product of the problem and a promulgation of the problem. The problem is unclear communication, intentionally or otherwise.

In my opinion, another example of this is prevalent in the debate around feminism. The argument third wave (primarily 21st century) feminists commonly make can be broken down into a bait-and-switch tactic, as follows:

Premise 1: "Do you believe that women should have equal rights as men?" If the question is answered 'yes', then the next premise is engaged, and if answered 'no', then the conversation is dropped.

Premise 2: "All feminists believe in equal rights for both sexes." This is a premise generally accepted, and often backed up with the dictionary definition.

Premise 3: "If you're a feminist, you have to believe in intersectionality." Intersectionality, in a sense, is the melding of feminism with other social justice movements and holds that women experience oppression in varying degrees based on their demographics like race and sexual orientation.

Conclusion: "If you believe in equal rights for men and women, you're a feminist, and if you're a feminist, you have to believe in intersectionality." Suddenly, through the fallacy of "affirming the consequent", you make the jump from believing in the principles of first wave feminism, of the right to vote and equal pay, all the way to those of third wave feminism.

This is not a rip on feminism or any other facet of social justice. I could make just as strong an argument about the "affirming the consequent fallacy" about the alt-right or even sections of the religious right, but this seemed the most relevant and clear example.

Trying to spread this way of thinking across the board is, of course, impossible. No one can get up on a stage and proclaim that everyone needs to communicate more clearly, making it so. However, you can start with yourself. In your own heated debates and conversations, check your own language and understanding of the other party.

Nobody likes to be deceived, and nobody likes to feel like their argument is pointless because neither party can understand one another. And clean up your room before you clean up the house.

Fox News Interview: